Re: passive, ingressive origins

From: tgpedersen
Message: 38916
Date: 2005-06-24

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "elmeras2000" <jer@...> wrote:
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...>
> wrote:
> > I didn't know that. Thanks. So I'll stick to the
> causative/iterative
> > present stem. I suggest it can be analysed as:
> >
> > *mone- "state of thinking"
> > *-h1 essive/translative
> >
> > *mone-h1 y§³m- "I impel <obj.> to a state of thinking"
> > *mone-h1 is- "you (sg.) impel <obj.> to a state of thinking"
> > *mone-h1 it- "he impels <obj.> to a state of thinking"
> >
> > *mone-h1 y§³mV- "we impel <obj.> to a state of thinking"
> > *mone-h1 itV- "you (pl.) impel <obj.> to a state of thinking"
> > *mone-h1 y§³nt- "they impel <obj.> to a state of thinking"
> >
> > where the auxiliary is
> > http://www.bartleby.com/61/roots/IE593.html
> > but without the laryngeal.
>
> You don't say? And how does the passive participle of the
causative
> *monit§³s, *sodit§³s, which you apparently did not know either, fit
> into this?
>

That's an exaggeration. I know my Latin verbs in the main forms.
How does

*mon-h1 it¨®-

suit you?


Torsten